no name wrote:I just don't like the league using a 5 year deal thing that has naver been tested on an open market. Players will play to their UFA an go somewhere to get the right salary, since teams won't have the room to pay them. When the NYR, etc can't buy great teams i think they will start singing different tunes about this 5 year deal thing.

I understand your trepidation in having UFAs go somewhere to get the right salary since the pens are stocked with talent. But having players leave to go get more money elsewhere as a UFA is the very thing that will, in theory, balance talent across the league and give everyone a chance. It gives every team a chance to compete, which makes for a more exciting league, which makes for higher revenues, etc.

That being said, I still don't think 5 year limits are necessary. I think if they just made the salary for that year be the amount that counts against the cap for that year, you'd see the number of 6+ year deals go down. The only started appearing in the league in large numbers when it became apparent that it was a way to cheat the cap. They're trying to apply a band-aid (and one that is agitating the PA in the process), when the opportunity to fix the problem is right there in front of them.

no name wrote:I just don't like the league using a 5 year deal thing that has naver been tested on an open market. Players will play to their UFA an go somewhere to get the right salary, since teams won't have the room to pay them. When the NYR, etc can't buy great teams i think they will start singing different tunes about this 5 year deal thing.

I understand your trepidation in having UFAs go somewhere to get the right salary since the pens are stocked with talent. But having players leave to go get more money elsewhere as a UFA is the very thing that will, in theory, balance talent across the league and give everyone a chance. It gives every team a chance to compete, which makes for a more exciting league, which makes for higher revenues, etc.

Imo, it will merely lead to every team going after the big names and overpaying for them even more, because whether we like it or not, it's the stars that are selling tickets, especially in non-traditonal markets or in a city like New York.

pens_srq wrote:A good move if I were the league would be to get all the players over here and claim Fehr spoiled the deal again.

How is that a good move?

With Fehr, the devil is in the details. He keeps trying to rewrite the owner's legal wording to add provisions that tie player money to nothing. As in the financial situation of the NHL is irrelevant in some ways to the amount of money paid to the players. This is bad business and no owner will ever sign it. So unless he is gone or suddenly decides to stop playing games with guaranteed $$ amounts, the NHL will have to break the union in order to have a season this year. There is no grey area. The owners want 50/50. Not 50 but that 50 can't be worth less than in a previous year etc... That language will have to be dropped COMPLETELY. This is what the players and no one covering it seems to get except for the one yahoo link I posted earlier. As long as there is language in there that guarantees money that is not based on total league revenues but rather on $$ values that occurred in previous years, there will be no deal period.

Say your business is to sell new PCs and it's 1999. The year 2000 "bug" is coming up so the sales people will get lots of sales this year. But next year might end up being a down year. Or even an average year.

If you tell your sales people that their commission is 20% of the sales, that's okay. But if you tell them in 2000 they get 20% of the sales but in any subsequent year after 2000, they cannot make less than they made in 2000. Then that 20% can climb. It could equal any percentage because it's no longer tied to actual sales unless they do better than the previous year. Say you have no sales. You still owe the sales people what you paid them in 2000. Say they get lazy and have an off year, still owe them what they made in 2000. AND if you have a better year than 2000, then that becomes the new minimum. I'm sure lots of people want a deal like this. First they make more money when the business as a whole does better, then they are guaranteed not to make less?

This is a recipe for disaster in the business world. It is eerily similar to what caused our housing market to collapse. ASSUMING that values will always go up and therefore people can take interest only loans was a huge mistake. No way an NHL owner is that dumb.

no name wrote:I just don't like the league using a 5 year deal thing that has naver been tested on an open market. Players will play to their UFA an go somewhere to get the right salary, since teams won't have the room to pay them. When the NYR, etc can't buy great teams i think they will start singing different tunes about this 5 year deal thing.

I understand your trepidation in having UFAs go somewhere to get the right salary since the pens are stocked with talent. But having players leave to go get more money elsewhere as a UFA is the very thing that will, in theory, balance talent across the league and give everyone a chance. It gives every team a chance to compete, which makes for a more exciting league, which makes for higher revenues, etc.

That being said, I still don't think 5 year limits are necessary. I think if they just made the salary for that year be the amount that counts against the cap for that year, you'd see the number of 6+ year deals go down. The only started appearing in the league in large numbers when it became apparent that it was a way to cheat the cap. They're trying to apply a band-aid (and one that is agitating the PA in the process), when the opportunity to fix the problem is right there in front of them.

ALos mentioned in a 5 year limit will not force teams to overpay for players after their prime years. Lets face it a player get thoes 13 year deals where at the end of the deals thoes players get, millions where their best days are behind them. This will force a team to only pay players thoes big millions when they are worth it.

I never thought as it seems less money will goto mid teir players, it actually will just make the next stars contract bigger. Once i big star gets paid less for since his skills are in declein, and the next gerneration star will pick up his slice of the pie.

I see players cashing in as high as possible during their prime years with this system.

no name wrote:I never thought as it seems less money will goto mid teir players, it actually will just make the next stars contract bigger. Once i big star gets paid less for since his skills are in declein, and the next gerneration star will pick up his slice of the pie.

I see players cashing in as high as possible during their prime years with this system.

Less security (shorter contracts) mean players will be demanding more money. Since your stars are always going to get paid, the mid- and bottom-tier guys are going to lose out. It's a rule that's going to hurt 80+% of the players.

no name wrote:I just don't like the league using a 5 year deal thing that has naver been tested on an open market. Players will play to their UFA an go somewhere to get the right salary, since teams won't have the room to pay them. When the NYR, etc can't buy great teams i think they will start singing different tunes about this 5 year deal thing.

I understand your trepidation in having UFAs go somewhere to get the right salary since the pens are stocked with talent. But having players leave to go get more money elsewhere as a UFA is the very thing that will, in theory, balance talent across the league and give everyone a chance. It gives every team a chance to compete, which makes for a more exciting league, which makes for higher revenues, etc.

That being said, I still don't think 5 year limits are necessary. I think if they just made the salary for that year be the amount that counts against the cap for that year, you'd see the number of 6+ year deals go down. The only started appearing in the league in large numbers when it became apparent that it was a way to cheat the cap. They're trying to apply a band-aid (and one that is agitating the PA in the process), when the opportunity to fix the problem is right there in front of them.

ALos mentioned in a 5 year limit will not force teams to overpay for players after their prime years. Lets face it a player get thoes 13 year deals where at the end of the deals thoes players get, millions where their best days are behind them. This will force a team to only pay players thoes big millions when they are worth it.

I never thought as it seems less money will goto mid teir players, it actually will just make the next stars contract bigger. Once i big star gets paid less for since his skills are in declein, and the next gerneration star will pick up his slice of the pie.

I see players cashing in as high as possible during their prime years with this system.

I see the owners trying to make the system as transparent as possible. Money counts when it applies, instead of playing numbers games to sign superstars to long term deals.

The players' 8 year proposal is reasonable. However, my guess is it settles on 7 with a 2 year optional bump if you resign with same team. 9 years is plenty of time to keep a player locked up.

I really want the loyalty clause in there as it helps teams like Pittsburgh that have a great organization, but can't compete with New York, Tampa, L.A. in the intangibles of living in the city.

I had a great idea, it would help teams and players alike, What if the NHL would allow teams to sign any player they want to 10 year deal max... but only the first 5 years on that contract is guarenteed money. After that a player can be released or asked to restructure the deal if his skills declined. Other wise if its a superstar you can keep that player locked up.

But of course with the 5% varience attached.

That way the Stamkos, Crosbys, of the league can be with a team as long as that team wants them. But if that team stinks or needs to open cap space they can trade the player or just release them. If the player is traded you are stuck paying half his salary. Release you are free and clean of the player.

isn't the max cap hit for a player somewhere around 14 million right now? and doesn't the most expensive player in the league only make (a cap hit of) 9.5 million?

i don't think limiting terms to 5 years is going to have that big of an effect on the middle class. not until the top, top guys like crosby start widening the gap and taking closer to max deals. i just don't think you'll start seeing guys like parise and kovalchuk have a bigger cap hit than crosby and malkin. it will stay relative.

Possible long term security for a player if he wants to stay with a team and possibly take less money over that time. But its that players choice to sign that 10 year deal, they can opt the 5 year deal if they want, but if players want that possible long term security it comes with a risk. Its not perfect but it gives a player that chance. Possible a player will take less in that 10 year span to make it attactive to keep that player there til the end of their career.

10 year 100 million contract, they are guarenteed 50 million if their skills keep them that good. It allows then the ability. but gives the teams the freedom after 5 years to get rid of the player. Or trade the player or ask that player to restructure their deal if they want to stay longer. If a team trades for that player they have to honor his existing contract. (player still gets paid(securityfor player)) Or all out release, he is a UFA.

Players want that long term contract in this CBA, but it comes with a risk.

After 5 years a few things can play out.

1. the team keeps honoring the deal as is.2. the team can ask a player to restructure their deal, " we still like you but you are no long worth this ammount. A. player says OK under the restructure, and the restructure is guarenteed. B. player says no i want my money. b1. team can try to trade player, but recieving team has to honor the existing conract and years left. b2. no team wants him, team has option to give him his unconditional release, he is a UFA

So this is how it ends... the owners and Bettman. Too much ego to negotiate. Too caught up in trying to make Donald Fehr look like the bad guy and break the union that they're willing to lose a season over it.

no name wrote:I just don't like the league using a 5 year deal thing that has naver been tested on an open market. Players will play to their UFA an go somewhere to get the right salary, since teams won't have the room to pay them. When the NYR, etc can't buy great teams i think they will start singing different tunes about this 5 year deal thing.

I understand your trepidation in having UFAs go somewhere to get the right salary since the pens are stocked with talent. But having players leave to go get more money elsewhere as a UFA is the very thing that will, in theory, balance talent across the league and give everyone a chance. It gives every team a chance to compete, which makes for a more exciting league, which makes for higher revenues, etc.

Imo, it will merely lead to every team going after the big names and overpaying for them even more, because whether we like it or not, it's the stars that are selling tickets, especially in non-traditonal markets or in a city like New York.

MRandall25 wrote:So this is how it ends... the owners and Bettman. Too much ego to negotiate. Too caught up in trying to make Donald Fehr look like the bad guy and break the union that they're willing to lose a season over it.

God I **** I hate this.

Are you kidding? No one is working to resolve the issue; the Fehr's over-promised and can't deliver, NHLPA is only representing PART of their membership in the negotiations, and the owners think they can break the union and are holding pat and bracing for a lawsuit. No one is trying to reach an agreement.... sign of the **** times.

MRandall25 wrote:So this is how it ends... the owners and Bettman. Too much ego to negotiate. Too caught up in trying to make Donald Fehr look like the bad guy and break the union that they're willing to lose a season over it.

God I **** I hate this.

Are you kidding? No one is working to resolve the issue; the Fehr's over-promised and can't deliver, NHLPA is only representing PART of their membership in the negotiations, and the owners think they can break the union and are holding pat and bracing for a lawsuit. No one is trying to reach an agreement.... sign of the **** times.

Until they lose time in next season, no one can say that Fehr over-promised and failed to deliver. In fact, as it stands now, Fehr has delivered, the only way he fails is if the Union breaks. He has strengthened them without question, and thats what they brought him in to do.

MRandall25 wrote:So this is how it ends... the owners and Bettman. Too much ego to negotiate. Too caught up in trying to make Donald Fehr look like the bad guy and break the union that they're willing to lose a season over it.

God I **** I hate this.

Are you kidding? No one is working to resolve the issue; the Fehr's over-promised and can't deliver, NHLPA is only representing PART of their membership in the negotiations, and the owners think they can break the union and are holding pat and bracing for a lawsuit. No one is trying to reach an agreement.... sign of the **** times.

Until they lose time in next season, no one can say that Fehr over-promised and failed to deliver. In fact, as it stands now, Fehr has delivered, the only way he fails is if the Union breaks. He has strengthened them without question, and thats what they brought him in to do.

If it was me, I would consider the loss of a paycheck for a year a failure, but that's just me.